Golden Rule

• Judge follows the literal rule until there's absurdity, then golden rule will be followed

  Two ways on how this works:

  • Narrow Approach
  • Wide Approach
• Narrow Approach

  If word or phrase is capable of more than one meaning, judge will chose most sensible of the two meanings

  
  

  However if there is only one possible meaning, it must be taken - Lord Reid

  
  

  R v Allen - law against bigamy. Judge interpreted 'marry' to mean "go through marriage ceremony"

  
  

  Adler v George - offence to be found "in the vicinity", judge interpreted this to also mean inside the base
• Wide Approach

  If the word only has one clear meaning but outcome is absurd and judge feels it necessary, they can modify words to ensure a common sense outcome

  
  

  Re Sigsworth - D killed mother under law was still able to inherit. Court decided this was repugnant so interpreted laws using this approach to forbid this
• Advantage of Golden Rule

  P- Respects the exact wording used by Parliament

  
  

  DEV- Follows words of Parliament but provides escape route where harsh or absurd decisions are made.

  This is arguably what Parliament would have truly intended

  • R v Allen

  E- However, this can lead to judges having too much power to decide what Parliament meant which can go against what they intended
• Advantage of Golden Rule

  P- Chooses most sensible outcome

  
  

  DEV- This provides common sense decisions to avoid results which would be unfair, ensuring law is applied in a way that makes sense in real life situations. Preventing law being too rigid

  • Re Sigsworth

  E- However, can lead to inconsistencies in how laws are applied, judges may interpret what is sensible differently
• Advantage of Golden Rule

  P- Saves time for Parliament

  
  

  DEV- Judges decision will set a precedent meaning Parliament doesn't have to spend time changing the law as future courts will follow rule made by the judge

  • R v Allen

  E- However, can lead to inconsistent interpretations of the law as future cases may not always align with what Parliament intended
• Disadvantage of Golden Rule

  P- Limited in its use

  
  

  DEV- Only used in rare occasions meaning its unpredictable when its going to be used. This causes problems for the public in following law as they do not know when the judge will consider something to be absurd

  • Adler v George

  E- However, this ensures that judges do not have too much power and intervene when necessary to prevent absurd outcomes
• Disadvantage of Golden Rule

  P- Judges change the meaning of the law

  
  

  DEV- This goes against the separation of powers by allowing judges to be lawmakers. Law making is democratic as its Parliament's role to make and change laws

  • Re Sigsworth

  E- However, by allowing judges to change meaning it can take power away from Parliament which then becomes undemocratic because judges are not elected
• Disadvantage of Golden Rule

  P- Unpredictable

  
  

  DEV- Lack of guidelines as to when judges will use this rule and when something is considered absurd or not. Meaning clients cannot be advised effectively

  • Michael Zander - feeble parachute

  E- However, lack of guidelines allow judges to use discretion to ensure law is applied sensibly rather than being rigid